New Petitions Filed

Apple, Inc., filed IPR2014-01032 challenging U.S. Patent No. 5,590,403 assigned to Bell Industries, Inc.

Apple, Inc., filed IPR2014-01033 challenging U.S. Patent No. 5,894,506 assigned to Skytel Communications, Inc.

Apple, Inc., filed IPR2014-01034 challenging U.S. Patent No. 5,894,506 assigned to Skytel Communications, Inc.

Apple, Inc., filed IPR2014-01035 challenging U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891assigned to Newcastle Partners, L.P.

Apple, Inc., filed IPR2014-01036 challenging U.S. Patent No. 5,915.210 assigned to Mobile Telecommunication Technologies.

Global Foundries U.S., Inc. filed IPR 2014-01042 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,808,184 assigned to Zond, Inc.

Inspectionlogic Corp., filed IPR 2014-01044 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,657,384, assigned to LDARtools, Inc.

Nautique Boat Company, Inc. filed IPR2014-01045 challenging U.S. Pat. 8,539,897.

Renesas Electronics Corporation filed IPR2014-01046  challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 assigned to Zond, Inc.

GlobalFoundries U.S., Inc. filed IPR2014-01047 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 assigned to Zond, Inc.

Artsana USA, Inc. filed IPR2014-01043 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,388,501, assigned to Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.

Hamilton Storage Technologies, Inc. filed IPR2014-01054 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,467,285 assigned to the University of Virginia.

Renesas Electronics Corporation filed IPR2014-01057 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,853,142 assigned to Zond, Inc.

Hamilton Storage Technologies, Inc. filed IPR2014-01058 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,581,395.

GlobalFoundries U.S., Inc. filed IPR2014-01059 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,147,759 assigned to Zond, Inc.

Hamilton Storage Technologies, Inc. filed IPR2014-01060 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,888,123.

Hamilton Storage Technologies, Inc. filed IPR2014-01062 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,941,762.

New Petitions Filed

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. filed IPR2014-01038 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,635,583.

RPC Formatec GmbH filed IPR2014-01040 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,505,773.

Metrics, Inc. filed IPR2014-01041 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,129,431 assigned to Senju Pharaceutical Co., Ltd.

Metrics, Inc. filed IPR2014-01043 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,669,290.

Intitution Decision

In Chrysler Group LLC v. Norman IP Holdings, LLC, IPR2014-00560 (June 26, 2014), the Board terminated the inter partes review  based upon the settlement of the parties.

In Square, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper, IPR2014-00157, Paper 17 (June 23, 2014), the Board concluded that in view of the patent expiration, the claims can no longer be amended, and thus they should be constructed according to their ordinary meaning. However, the Board concluded that the application of the Phillips standard did not change the construction of (1) “universal credit card/universal credit card apparatus”; (2) “transducer”; (3) “host system”; and (4) “emitter” as set forth in the Decision to Institute Review.  Yet again indicating that the broadest reasonble construction is often the ordinary meaning.

New Petitions

Wright Medical Technology, Inc., filed  IPR2014-00908 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,440,138 assigned to ORTHOPHOENIX, LLC

Intel Corporation filed IPR2014-00910  challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,595,546 assigned to ZETTASET, INC.

Cisco Systems, Inc.filed IPR IPR2014-00911 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,134,917 assigned to Constellation Technologies LLC

Wright Medical Technology, Inc., filed IPR2014-00912 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,863,672 assigned to ORTHOPHOENIX, LLC

Intel Corporation filed IPR2014-00910 challenging U.S. Patent No.6,805,779 assigned to Zond, Inc.

Cisco Systems, Inc. filed IPR2014-00914 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,464,299 assigned to Constellation Technologies LLC.

Institution Decisions

Syntroleum Corporation v. Neste Oil Oyj, IPR2014-00192, Paper 18 (June 6, 2014) the Board  instituted Inter Partes Reviwe of claims 1-24 (all of the claims) of U.S. Patent No. 8,278,492.

RPX Corporation v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00176, denied Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504, in a confidential dcision.

Zimmer Holdings, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC, Paper 11, (June 4, 2014)denied Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 30-39 of U.S. Patent No. 7,959,635.

Termination Decisions

CLICK4CARE, INC. v. My Health Inc., IPR2014-00435, Paper 11 (June 6, 2014) the Board terminated the inter partes review on the joint motion of the parties.

New Petitions

Ford Motor Company filed IPR2014-00884 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347 assigned to Paice LLC.

HTC Corporation IPR2014-000905 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,400,926 assigned to Patentmarks Communications, LLC.

Institution Decisions

RPX Corporation v. VirnetX Inc.,  IPR2014-00171, Paper 49 (June 5, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review in a confidential decision.

RPX Corporation v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00172, Paper 49 (June 5, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review in a confidential decision.

RPX Corporation v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00174, Paper 50 (June 5, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review in a confidential decision.

RPX Corporation v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00175, Paper 49 (June 5, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review in a confidential decision.

RPX Corporation v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00177, Paper 49 (June 5, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review in a confidential decision.

Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00043, Paper 98, IPR2013-00044, Paper 96 (June 5, 2014), the Board had difficulty determining what points Corning believed the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and dismissed the request without prejudice.  The Board gave Coring driectino on how to file a request for rehearing:

On page ___ the Final Written Decision states ___. A point that the Decision is believed to have overlooked [or misapprehended] is ___. The point was set forth in ___ Petition [or Reply] _ at page ___. Explain why overlooked or misapprehended point is significant.

In Microsoft Corporation v. Surfcast, Inc., IPR2013-00292, Paper 77 (June 5, 2014), the PTAB authorized the patent owner to file a corrected motion to correct what it deemed potential ambiguities in the proposed substitute claims filed in its first motion.  The Board further authorized the petitioner to file up to five pages of additional briefing solely as to the changes introfuced by the corrected motion.

Petions Filed

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc..filed a petition IPR2014-00885 challenging U.S. Patent No. 5,922,695 assigned to Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc..filed a petition IPR2014-00886 challenging U.S. Patent No. 5,935,946 assigned to Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc..filed a petition IPR2014-00887 challenging U.S. Patent No. 5,977,809 assigned to Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc..filed a petition IPR2014-00888 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,043,230 assigned to Gilead Sciences, Inc., IPR2013-00466 (June 4, 2014), the Board terminated the proceeding on the joint motion of the parties.

Institution Decisions

Zimmer Holdings, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC, Paper 11, (June 4, 2014)denied Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 30-39 of U.S. Patent No. 7,959,635

Termination Decisions

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,

Ikaria, Inc. v. GENO LLC, IPR2013-00253, Paper 28 (June 4, 2014), the Board entered judgment against the patent owner in response to a request by the patent owner.

In GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., IPR2014-00041, Paper 38IPR2014-00051, Paper 36 (June 3, 2014), the Board denied the additional discovery it authorized Steuben Foods to file, in view of GEA’s agreement to produce the requested documents.

In Eastman Kodak Company v. RR DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, IPR2014-00788, Paper 3, IPR2014-00789, Paper 3, IPR2014-00790, Paper 3, IPR2014-00791, Paper 3,(June 3, 2014). the Board reminded petitioners that footnotes, like the rest of the text of a Petition, must be double spaced.  Petitoner was given five days to make a correct.